Un elected PM

[Scooby72]

I know evreyone has been going on about Gordon being an un-elected PM, and it got me wondering what was the difference between that, and when John Major took over from Mrs. Thatcher ?

I'm not defending Brown, it is a genuine question because I was too young to remember / care about the finer details in thse days.

Major took over in 1990, but the next GE wasn't until, what '92 ?

[Crusoe]

Main difference was that there was a debate within the party and the elected PMs decided to vote for Major to fill the role. There was not even a leadership election on the Labour side so there was no debate about brown or alternatives with their policies debated.

[DJC]

Scooby72 said:

I know evreyone has been going on about Gordon being an un-elected PM, and it got me wondering what was the difference between that, and when John Major took over from Mrs. Thatcher ?

I'm not defending Brown, it is a genuine question because I was too young to remember / care about the finer details in thse days.

Major took over in 1990, but the next GE wasn't until, what '92 ?

The major difference is that when Maggie went it was a full on blood letting, bhfest and dogfight.

With Gordon there was no contest at all.

There was no sort of contest at all for Gordon to win any mandate on. John Major had to survive arguably the bloodiest election in modern political times.

[unrepentant]

DJC said:

The major difference is that when Maggie went it was a full on blood letting, bhfest and dogfight.

With Gordon there was no contest at all.

There was no sort of contest at all for Gordon to win any mandate on. John Major had to survive arguably the bloodiest election in modern political times.

Hardly. Heseltine did all the running and the Heseltine v Thatcher fight on the first ballot was the bloodletting bit. JM kept well back in the shadows having "wisdom teeth" work and stepped in to the fray only after the bloodletting was over on November 22 and Maggie had gone. He beat Heseltine and Hurd easily in the second ballot 5 days later at which point Hurd dropped out and the owner of PH conceded and JM was elected without the need for a 3rd ballot.

Edited by unrepentant on Monday 8th June 13:13

[AndrewW-G]

Ignoring the differing rules within the Conservatives and labour party concerning the selection of a leader & that there was a leadership contest to force Margaret Thatcher out.
The primary difference to me is that the conservative election material didn’t state that Margaret Thatcher would see out her third term in office if the Conservatives were returned to power................labour election manifesto and publicity material from 2005 states quiet clearly that Blair would see out his third term as PM. labour and winky therefore do not have a public mandate to be in office, to make that two pm's without a mandate in one term would damage any vestiges or belief in democracy in England

[Muntu]

I didn't realise that we had a presidential electoral system over here.

[Tony*T3]

Browns selection was more or less unanimous. there was no opposition to him from anyone else, therefore he won by default.

Its often forgotten that Maggie Thatcher WON the first round of voting in her re-election as PM bid, but just not by a clear enough majority. She lost because on the need for another round of voting.

[unrepentant]

AndrewW-G said:

The primary difference to me is that the conservative election material didn’t state that Margaret Thatcher would see out her third term in office if the Conservatives were returned to power................labour election manifesto and publicity material from 2005 states quiet clearly that Blair would see out his third term as PM. labour and winky therefore do not have a public mandate to be in office, to make that two pm's without a mandate in one term would damage any vestiges or belief in democracy in England

That's not actually true.

Labours 2005 manifesto makes no mention of Blair serving a full term. In fact he specifically says in the manifesto that he is fighting his last election as leader and PM, meaning that he will go before the next election.

[Fittster]

Muntu said:

I didn't realise that we had a presidential electoral system over here.

Do you believe the window dressing of house of commons makes any difference?

[jesusbuiltmycar]

I thought you were talking about Mandleson - NO-ONE whatsover voted for him, yet he is now Deputy PM in all but name.

Lord Mandleson, UK First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Lord President of the Council.

Apparantly if Winky had actually named Mandleson as Deputy PM Harriet Harmon would of quit...

Edited by jesusbuiltmycar on Monday 8th June 14:06

[CommanderJameson]

Tony*T3 said:

Browns selection was more or less unanimous. there was no opposition to him from anyone else, therefore he won by default.

Not quite true, but certainly not false, either.

John McDonnell stood against him, but failed to garner sufficient support (29 nominations obtained, 45 required) to trigger a leadership election.

Yeah, I don't know who John McDonnell is, either. Out of 300-odd MPs, there was only Brown and McDonnell who wanted the job? Riiight.

It was a coronation in all but name, and Mandelson has subsequently confirmed this:

Peter Mandelson said:

Another leader couldn’t simply mean another coronation; you would have to have a leadership contest. A picture would be presented to the country that is self-indulgent. And having got a third leader in the course of a Parliament, having a general election shortly afterwards would be unavoidable too.

[jesusbuiltmycar]

CommanderJameson said:

It was a coronation in all but name, and Mandelson has subsequently

A corronation he probably now regrets. If there had been a proper leadership contest, GB would have probably won anyway. Instead he did not have the courage to face the vote of his own party and now every time the polls look bad for Labour, his spineless MPs talk of forcing a leadership contest, slowly undermine his authority.

[Tony*T3]

CommanderJameson said:

Tony*T3 said:

Browns selection was more or less unanimous. there was no opposition to him from anyone else, therefore he won by default.

Not quite true, but certainly not false, either.

John McDonnell stood against him, but failed to garner sufficient support (29 nominations obtained, 45 required) to trigger a leadership election.

Yeah, I don't know who John McDonnell is, either. Out of 300-odd MPs, there was only Brown and McDonnell who wanted the job? Riiight.

It was a coronation in all but name, and Mandelson has subsequently confirmed this:

Peter Mandelson said:

Another leader couldn’t simply mean another coronation; you would have to have a leadership contest. A picture would be presented to the country that is self-indulgent. And having got a third leader in the course of a Parliament, having a general election shortly afterwards would be unavoidable too.

I had intended to use the term 'credible' opposition, but forgot.

[Tony*T3]

AndrewW-G said:

Ignoring the differing rules within the Conservatives and labour party concerning the selection of a leader & that there was a leadership contest to force Margaret Thatcher out.
The primary difference to me is that the conservative election material didn’t state that Margaret Thatcher would see out her third term in office if the Conservatives were returned to power................labour election manifesto and publicity material from 2005 states quiet clearly that Blair would see out his third term as PM. labour and winky therefore do not have a public mandate to be in office, to make that two pm's without a mandate in one term would damage any vestiges or belief in democracy in England

Sorry but thats 'rubbish'. Please provide link to proove what you've said.

The party decides whoose going to be PM. They can force a vote at any time to remove a PM. Stops one person gaining 'dictorial' control.

The people of Britain do not choose the PM.

[John MacK]

Scooby72 said:

Gordon being an un-elected

He was elected by his constituency at the last general election.

[DJC]

unrepentant said:

DJC said:

The major difference is that when Maggie went it was a full on blood letting, bhfest and dogfight.

With Gordon there was no contest at all.

There was no sort of contest at all for Gordon to win any mandate on. John Major had to survive arguably the bloodiest election in modern political times.

Hardly. Heseltine did all the running and the Heseltine v Thatcher fight on the first ballot was the bloodletting bit. JM kept well back in the shadows having "wisdom teeth" work and stepped in to the fray only after the bloodletting was over on November 22 and Maggie had gone. He beat Heseltine and Hurd easily in the second ballot 5 days later at which point Hurd dropped out and the owner of PH conceded and JM was elected without the need for a 3rd ballot.

Edited by unrepentant on Monday 8th June 13:13

The blood letting leading upto Maggie quitting was vicious. The consequences of it are still being felt in British politics today. It wasnt exactly a civil and friendly garden party.

[unrepentant]

DJC said:

unrepentant said:

DJC said:

The major difference is that when Maggie went it was a full on blood letting, bhfest and dogfight.

With Gordon there was no contest at all.

There was no sort of contest at all for Gordon to win any mandate on. John Major had to survive arguably the bloodiest election in modern political times.

Hardly. Heseltine did all the running and the Heseltine v Thatcher fight on the first ballot was the bloodletting bit. JM kept well back in the shadows having "wisdom teeth" work and stepped in to the fray only after the bloodletting was over on November 22 and Maggie had gone. He beat Heseltine and Hurd easily in the second ballot 5 days later at which point Hurd dropped out and the owner of PH conceded and JM was elected without the need for a 3rd ballot.

The blood letting leading upto Maggie quitting was vicious. The consequences of it are still being felt in British politics today. It wasnt exactly a civil and friendly garden party.

I agree but Major was pretty uninvolved in any of it. In fact he quite skillfully managed to stay well out of the way whilst most of the infighting was going on, a skill which allowed him to remain untainted and acceptable to both sides. Howe, Heseltine and to some extent Lawson were the architects of her downfall. Majors own battle was in 1995 but it proved to be fairly bloodless as he easily saw off John Redwoods leadership challenge by a margin of 218-89.

Edited by unrepentant on Monday 8th June 17:05

[Muntu]

Fittster said:

Muntu said:

I didn't realise that we had a presidential electoral system over here.

Do you believe the window dressing of house of commons makes any difference?

The system is what it is. Bleating on about GB not being elected to the position of PM during the General Election is pretty pointless IMO.

[andy400]

John MacK said:

Scooby72 said:

Gordon being an un-elected

He was elected by his constituency at the last general election.

However, he was not elected PM. If our 'democratic' system was working as it was designed to, this would not matter, I agree. We supposedly vote for our own MP in a system of 'representative democracy', where he/she is then supposed to represent our interests and opinions. In reality, they don't do this, expecially with the Labour party, and merely speak and vote how they are told to by the party whips, who in turn are instructed by the PM, sooooooo...... when you vote for a Labour candidate, for example, you are voting for the Labour party, and for their leader who will become PM. If a different PM is then shoved in, without any kind of election, even an election within the party, it is very easy to argue that said new PM will be in power with no (none/nada/zero/zilch) mandate from the electorate.

[ypauly]

John MacK said:

Scooby72 said:

Gordon being an un-elected

He was elected by his constituency at the last general election.

yes to be an MP and serve the several thousand people that voted


he was not elected PM by anybody

I believe there was alot of bullying and bribery going on behind the scenes to ensure nobody stood against him, whilst simultaniously holding an election for deputy in the hope the public wouldn't notice.